Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said.
...
Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and un-American.
Um... isn't that, like... DIRECT contradiction? Or am I mistaken yet again?
Microsoft also said open-source software is inherently less secure because the code is available for the world to examine for flaws, making it possible for hackers or criminals to exploit them. Proprietary software, the company argued, is more secure because of its closed nature.
I know this has been said before, but... isn't being able to freely expose security flaws also the key to fix them?
Just wants people to worship him in the linsux religion. Thats right, slashdotters are not Linsux OS users, they tend to be religious fanatics who worship Torvalds and his Linsux creation.
Hyuk, hyuk, I made my own word, linsux! Hahahalololoroofles linsux!!!111 I'm a complete genius, yes I am. *droooooool*
What're you talkin' 'bout? You an' yer newfangled tran-sis-tors or quan-tum. Why, my punchcard programming skills alone have gotten me on THIS website, not that I'd find much useful. Until they can make a computer that can fetch me my milk bottles, I'll stick to what I have, thank you very much.
I heard a lot of hype about this, but...now that they had that part of their EULA, there's NO way I'm going to write anything for them. I won't buy it, either. There's simply no way that I'm just going to hand over my rights to anyone for using their software. It's ludicrous, to say the least, even if it's NOT from Micro$oft.
Yeah. And at least the artistwasn't entirely insane -- I mean, the way these articles usually go, you'd think that he'd be pressing charges for caltrans not taking it down because it's his property and he wants royalties on it.
Bach will testify that his modular version of Windows was "robust and reliable," Kollar-Kotelly said, citing the states' submission.
The states named Bach as one of two witnesses they want to call at the end of the case to rebut some of Microsoft's arguments.
Microsoft attorneys strongly objected, saying the states should have brought Bach into the case earlier when they were presenting their initial case.
Funny; they first say that a modular Windows is impossible and at best has shoddy performance (as opposed to Windows Me, for example? But that's another story...), and now their best defense is that the prosecution should have said that they were going to be proven wrong beforehand?
I'm not really a legal expert, so I'll need someone to clear me up on the subject, but isn't that what the prosecution usually tries to do in a court case?
I think it's pretty cool that they waited until now, actually -- now Microsoft's defense, which they've been using as a cloak for months, has entirely been stripped from them; the very base of their defense is (well, technically, WILL be) officially a lie. One could imagine a conversation in the courtroom:
Defense attorney: Windows canNOT be seperated. It'll reduce the performance to that of... um... something worse than it al... I mean, than... well, I don't see YOU trying to write a modular Windows!
Prosecution: We have here a robust and modular version of Windows, which is physical proof that the defense's statement is false.
Defense: Yeah, but... juuuudge, they're not playing nice! They won't let us know what evidence they have until they want to use it!
Judge: *sigh*
Again, I'm not a legal guy, so this is just what goes through my head when I read this article.
This is possibly my favorite paragraph:
As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licencing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software.
In one simple paragraph, he insulted González (well, it was really from Billy, but whatever) by the "...or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement..." of the products you license" bit, shows that the arguments about reliability completely contradict themselves, and executed his rebuttal in such a way that it seems prefectly reasonable.
My hat's off to Mr. Nuñez. *realizes he doesn't have a hat* Oh, well, you know what I mean.
I also like this one:
This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licences) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one...
I got just one word for dat -- BURN!
Slashdot Mirror
Spokesman Jon Murchinson said Microsoft has been talking about how to allow open-source and proprietary software to coexist. "Our goal is to resolve difficult issues that are driving a wedge between the commercial and free software models," he said.
...
Microsoft's push is a new front in a long-running company assault on the open-source movement, which company officials have called "a cancer" and un-American. Um... isn't that, like... DIRECT contradiction? Or am I mistaken yet again? Microsoft also said open-source software is inherently less secure because the code is available for the world to examine for flaws, making it possible for hackers or criminals to exploit them. Proprietary software, the company argued, is more secure because of its closed nature.
I know this has been said before, but... isn't being able to freely expose security flaws also the key to fix them?
Just wants people to worship him in the linsux religion. Thats right, slashdotters are not Linsux OS users, they tend to be religious fanatics who worship Torvalds and his Linsux creation.
Hyuk, hyuk, I made my own word, linsux! Hahahalololoroofles linsux!!!111 I'm a complete genius, yes I am. *droooooool*
What're you talkin' 'bout? You an' yer newfangled tran-sis-tors or quan-tum. Why, my punchcard programming skills alone have gotten me on THIS website, not that I'd find much useful. Until they can make a computer that can fetch me my milk bottles, I'll stick to what I have, thank you very much.
I heard a lot of hype about this, but...now that they had that part of their EULA, there's NO way I'm going to write anything for them. I won't buy it, either. There's simply no way that I'm just going to hand over my rights to anyone for using their software. It's ludicrous, to say the least, even if it's NOT from Micro$oft.
Yeah. And at least the artistwasn't entirely insane -- I mean, the way these articles usually go, you'd think that he'd be pressing charges for caltrans not taking it down because it's his property and he wants royalties on it.
Yeah, that's true. I guess even if it *is* Microsoft, they should be given decent time for a rebuttal.
But...what kind of rebuttal would they give, I wonder?
Well, I still think the whole situation's funny, even if it is wrong.
Bach will testify that his modular version of Windows was "robust and reliable," Kollar-Kotelly said, citing the states' submission. The states named Bach as one of two witnesses they want to call at the end of the case to rebut some of Microsoft's arguments. Microsoft attorneys strongly objected, saying the states should have brought Bach into the case earlier when they were presenting their initial case. Funny; they first say that a modular Windows is impossible and at best has shoddy performance (as opposed to Windows Me, for example? But that's another story...), and now their best defense is that the prosecution should have said that they were going to be proven wrong beforehand? I'm not really a legal expert, so I'll need someone to clear me up on the subject, but isn't that what the prosecution usually tries to do in a court case? I think it's pretty cool that they waited until now, actually -- now Microsoft's defense, which they've been using as a cloak for months, has entirely been stripped from them; the very base of their defense is (well, technically, WILL be) officially a lie. One could imagine a conversation in the courtroom: Defense attorney: Windows canNOT be seperated. It'll reduce the performance to that of... um... something worse than it al... I mean, than... well, I don't see YOU trying to write a modular Windows! Prosecution: We have here a robust and modular version of Windows, which is physical proof that the defense's statement is false. Defense: Yeah, but... juuuudge, they're not playing nice! They won't let us know what evidence they have until they want to use it! Judge: *sigh* Again, I'm not a legal guy, so this is just what goes through my head when I read this article.
This is possibly my favorite paragraph: As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licencing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software. In one simple paragraph, he insulted González (well, it was really from Billy, but whatever) by the "...or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement..." of the products you license" bit, shows that the arguments about reliability completely contradict themselves, and executed his rebuttal in such a way that it seems prefectly reasonable. My hat's off to Mr. Nuñez. *realizes he doesn't have a hat* Oh, well, you know what I mean. I also like this one: This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licences) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one... I got just one word for dat -- BURN!